So I was perusing flicker and I came across a list of what popphoto had deemed 20 of flickrs best photographers. Each one of these photographers was absolutely exception. What bothered me though were the remarks left by people where they commented about how they were glad to see no HDR images include and then went on to suggest that it is a mockery of photography. I could care less that no HDR images were included, I know popphoto has done multiple articles on the merits and techniques of HDR photography, but I know that when you limit yourself to twenty people it is very likely that most photography techniques will not be included in the final list. Now their will always be "purist", but I can't begin to imagine why suddenly with the revelution of HDR people look at it as the destruction of photography or as something fake. Photography is constantly evolving from old style medium format cameras, to polaroids, the invention of color film, and the digital revolution. In the dark room you have multiple choices as well they're different papers you can use; RC paper, Fiber based paper, or you can use liquid light, and put your image on any kind of material you desire. Then you have different filters for more or less contrast. My point is in photography their are about a million and one ways to reach your final print. HDR software is simply a new tool to be experimented with and explored to find its place in photography. My point I suppose is simply to stamp out the notion of purism. If the print was created by some one going somewhere and finding a composition through a camera lens then that is in my book a photo.